David M. Brown

The respondent unit owner sought to convert its monthly commercial parking spots into an hourly operation, requiring changes to the condominium's common elements.

The condominium board refused to approve the changes unless the respondent hired a full-time security guard due to safety concerns.

The application judge found the board's condition unfairly disregarded the respondent's interests under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge improperly relied on untested evidence and failed to accord deference to the board.

Applying the business judgment rule, the Court found the board acted honestly, in good faith, and its decision to prioritize security over the respondent's economic interests was within a range of reasonable choices.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding she was unjustly enriched by receiving a $200,000 share of a winning lottery ticket.

The respondent, a former employee, had contributed to the ticket before leaving his job, while the appellant joined the workplace lottery pool after the ticket was purchased.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the ticket was co-owned by the original contributors and rejected the appellant's argument that the pool constituted an ongoing partnership under the Partnerships Act.

The appeal was dismissed.